Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[paperview]

Wow. That one needs more than one of those.



Seriously.

More silly deflection on your part.

The comatose dude thought slaves were meant to be protected by the constitution with full rights.

It's not deflection. He's a loony tune.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Assumptions make you look silly.

The point is that we have for a VERY long time been at the mercy of judicial interpreters.

Yes, you are correct, we have been at their mercy, and still are. But, that does not mean that we have to buy into that idea as the proper way of doing it.

The old ways of tainted food and child laborers were not the correct way, either.

None of which had anything to do with the Constitution.
Note...Those and other 'inhumanities' were outlawed by legislation.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Society evolves

Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed

The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society

That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on

No, that is why we have Article V, to amend the Constitution.

 

[Mustang]

No law that Congress passed deserves the credit for the improvement in that statistic.

Congress doesn't pass laws. Congress passes bills which are either signed into law by the president, or once he vetoes it, the president's veto can be overturned by a 2/3rds vote of Congress.

Where is your picture of Che?

So....you would contend that the President has the authority to treat the law, any law any way he wishes....I mean just as he has the ACA?

It's amazing how many conservatives have a reading comprehension problem. Over the years, I've come to an conclusion about why that might be so. The liberals paid attention in class and learned the subjects being taught in order to master concepts necessary for later in life when critical thinking and analysis is required. Conservatives spent their time forming their opinions and eschewing the elitism of people who think that higher education and knowing facts is more important than having an uninformed opinion on every subject under the sun as if believing something automatically made it true.

By the way, where's your picture of Franco?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Hundreds of years of court decisions on the interpretation of the Constitution s a living organism

Scalia, if anyone, should understand his job

Your statement is meaningless. We already know the Supreme Court has stretched the meaning of the Constitution beyond recognition. The question being discussed is whether its correct to do so.

The answer to this question is also meaningless.

A man can only be destroyed by a Jury of People, by the People, for the People. No Court can overturn an acquittal. No Executive can imprison an acquitted man, and no Legislative Body can pass a Bill of Attainder to usurp an acquittal of a Jury.

This is why the Fugitive Slave Clause and Progressive Prohibition of Alcohol was pretty much ineffective, even though they were in the Constitution itself. Juries more often than not acquitted (or hanged) in these cases.

There is a reason that the Obamacare Penalty has been classified as a "tax." It was classified as a tax to make it immune to Jury review.

Jury nullification is the only peaceful solution to the Progressive assault on American liberties, and they will use the SCOTUS Obamacare precedent to classify many other penalties as a tax, in order to destroy those who will not conform to their agenda.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Wonder if the OP agrees with Scalia here: "There Is No Right to Secede" -Antonin hisself

I think the OP would blow a gasket if (s)he read Scalia's authoring of the decision in Employment Division v. Smith




>>>>

Actually, the underlying controlling principle for the constitutionalist was the results of personal behavior against the concerns of the respective enterprise regarding the prerogatives of private property and free association, coupled with the notion that the Oregon law prohibiting the use of peyote applied to all universally, not to any one individual or religious faith. Hence, the plaintiffs' argument had to be weighed against the right of another to disassociate itself from the effects of such behavior where in fact there existed no undo burden on the individual's religious rights.

The plaintiff would have either been asserting the absurdity that the respective enterprise from which he was fired had to tolerate the effects of his peyote use on the job, or that the state had to compel the respective enterprise to pay compensation in order to assert its right to disassociate itself from the same.

Notwithstanding, the Court formally asserted that "Oregon's ban on the possession of peyote is not a law specifically aimed at a physical act engaged in for a religious reason. Rather, it is a law that applies to everyone who might possess peyote, for whatever reason—a 'neutral law of general applicability' ".

The fact of the matter is that the majority asserted its decision with the underlying principle in mind, albeit, against the argument that the plaintiff actually made against the legitimacy of Oregon's prohibition regarding the possession and use of peyote as the grounds on which it could deny compensation.

The majority would have served constitutional and natural law better, and more accurately, had it simply invoked the case law supporting the underlying principles of private property and free association relative to behavioral defects on the job, rather than muddle the issue by upholding Oregon's denial of compensation per the use of an illegal substance as the grounds of dismissal.

Though that may seem to some to be a subtle distinction; it is, in fact, profound.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The libturds are always saying that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

Not quite, but the SC does determine the constitutionality of laws, so....

As far as the Constitution being a living document, well it is. It has been amended to suit changing times and views. Perhaps you've heard of the Bill of Rights? How about the 15th amendment which "prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude"? Should we go back to the days before that amendment because it wasn't originally in the Constitution?

That is bullshit.
SCOTUS opinions DO NOT change the Constitution.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Scalia had no problem interpretting the constitution his own way in Heller or Citizen's United.

He interpreted the document correctly. The libturds having a hissy fit because they think the government can limit the First Amendment rights of private citizens are wrong.

You and others on the right can’t have it both ways; if Scalia interpreted the Constitution correctly with regard to Heller, then he also interpreted the Constitution correctly with regard to Employment Division v. Smith (1990), where Scalia reaffirmed the fact that indeed government has the authority to place limits on religions liberty, and where religious liberty does not excuse disobeying an otherwise just and valid law.

It is YOUR SIDE that wants everything both ways.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The regulations trying to prevent tainted food and ending child labor in no way was unconstitutional and in no way caused irreparable harm to the country.

No one stated they were. False injection.

 

[Mojo2]

Congress doesn't pass laws. Congress passes bills which are either signed into law by the president, or once he vetoes it, the president's veto can be overturned by a 2/3rds vote of Congress.

Where is your picture of Che?

So....you would contend that the President has the authority to treat the law, any law any way he wishes....I mean just as he has the ACA?

It's amazing how many conservatives have a reading comprehension problem. Over the years, I've come to an conclusion about why that might be so. The liberals paid attention in class and learned the subjects being taught in order to master concepts necessary for later in life when critical thinking and analysis is required. Conservatives spent their time forming their opinions and eschewing the elitism of people who think that higher education and knowing facts is more important than having an uninformed opinion on every subject under the sun as if believing something automatically made it true.

By the way, where's your picture of Franco?

Nah, any Liberals able to process any of this more advanced info are just idiot savants.

 

[paperview]

He interpreted the document correctly. The libturds having a hissy fit because they think the government can limit the First Amendment rights of private citizens are wrong.

You and others on the right can’t have it both ways; if Scalia interpreted the Constitution correctly with regard to Heller, then he also interpreted the Constitution correctly with regard to Employment Division v. Smith (1990), where Scalia reaffirmed the fact that indeed government has the authority to place limits on religions liberty, and where religious liberty does not excuse disobeying an otherwise just and valid law.

It is YOUR SIDE that wants everything both ways.

So conservatives embraced restrictions to the First Amendment as outlined by Scalia in Employment Division v. Smith?

 

[Mustang]

Where is your picture of Che?

So....you would contend that the President has the authority to treat the law, any law any way he wishes....I mean just as he has the ACA?

It's amazing how many conservatives have a reading comprehension problem. Over the years, I've come to an conclusion about why that might be so. The liberals paid attention in class and learned the subjects being taught in order to master concepts necessary for later in life when critical thinking and analysis is required. Conservatives spent their time forming their opinions and eschewing the elitism of people who think that higher education and knowing facts is more important than having an uninformed opinion on every subject under the sun as if believing something automatically made it true.

By the way, where's your picture of Franco?

Nah, any Liberals able to process any of this more advanced info are just idiot savants.

Idiot Savant is a term that is no loger considered accurate and, as a result, is also no longer in common usage, except among the more ignorant classes of people. Savant Syndrome is considered more accurate. Hopefully, you'll be able to benefit from my greater knowledge on the subject, which is likely also true about a wide variety of subjects.

 

[Mojo2]

It's amazing how many conservatives have a reading comprehension problem. Over the years, I've come to an conclusion about why that might be so. The liberals paid attention in class and learned the subjects being taught in order to master concepts necessary for later in life when critical thinking and analysis is required. Conservatives spent their time forming their opinions and eschewing the elitism of people who think that higher education and knowing facts is more important than having an uninformed opinion on every subject under the sun as if believing something automatically made it true.

By the way, where's your picture of Franco?

Nah, any Liberals able to process any of this more advanced info are just idiot savants.

Idiot Savant is a term that is no loger considered accurate and, as a result, is also no longer in common usage, except among the more ignorant classes of people. Savant Syndrome is considered more accurate. Hopefully, you'll be able to benefit from my greater knowledge on the subject...

I'm reminded of the time when my date (a former Nun) and I were at a social affair and one of her friends began talking about the drugs used for mood disorders. Oh, she knew them all and I knew none of them. Well, I later learned she was a drug addict.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You and others on the right can’t have it both ways; if Scalia interpreted the Constitution correctly with regard to Heller, then he also interpreted the Constitution correctly with regard to Employment Division v. Smith (1990), where Scalia reaffirmed the fact that indeed government has the authority to place limits on religions liberty, and where religious liberty does not excuse disobeying an otherwise just and valid law.

Hogwash. Once again, Jonesy, you get it all wrong. The subtleties of case law evade you.

WorldWatcher, paperview, are you paying attention?

The Court's decision was not anywhere near that broad. Indeed, the Court consciously avoided the question of religious liberty, in and of itself, relative to the use of a substance deemed illegal by the state of Oregon.

The issue was unemployment compensation relative to the grounds of dismissal, in this case, the use of an illegal, mind-altering substance, with the underlying, though unstated, principles of concern being the prerogatives of private property and free association, which assert the very opposite of what you claim; rather, the majority was ultimately determined to prevent the government from allowing the private behavior of one, whether it be deemed religious or not, being foisted on the private interests of another in such a way that the interests and, therefore, the ideological liberty of the other are violated or prohibited.

See link: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-is-not-a-living-organism-13.html#post8780684

The Court did not shut the door on any challenge to Oregon's prohibition of the possession or use of peyote on religious grounds, in and of itself, insofar as its possession or use did not conflict with the interests/constitutional rights of others.

Zoom! Right over.

Further, while the formal reason for the decision in Employment Division v. Smith is, in my opinion, a bit shaky, the formal reason for the decision in Hiller is not. Not remotely so.

Finally, while Scalia may not have consistently or perfectly asserted the doctrine of strict constructionism (or originalism) throughout his career, as humans will be human, that has nothing to do with the validity of the doctrine itself.
_________________________________________

EDIT: LOL! Writing too fast last night. Wrote dismissed when obviously I meant dismissal in the above.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It's amazing how many conservatives have a reading comprehension problem. Over the years, I've come to an conclusion about why that might be so. The liberals paid attention in class and learned the subjects being taught in order to master concepts necessary for later in life when critical thinking and analysis is required. Conservatives spent their time forming their opinions and eschewing the elitism of people who think that higher education and knowing facts is more important than having an uninformed opinion on every subject under the sun as if believing something automatically made it true.

By the way, where's your picture of Franco?

Nah, any Liberals able to process any of this more advanced info are just idiot savants.

Idiot Savant is a term that is no loger considered accurate and, as a result, is also no longer in common usage, except among the more ignorant classes of people. Savant Syndrome is considered more accurate. Hopefully, you'll be able to benefit from my greater knowledge on the subject, which is likely also true about a wide variety of subjects.

I still like idiot savant, and don't give a hoot what anyone else says about its use.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Society evolves

Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed

The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society

That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on

No, that is why we have Article V, to amend the Constitution.

Nonsense.

The ‘amendment process’ was never intended to address every conflict and controversy that manifests in society; in fact, it’s wholly unsuited to bring a resolution to the vast majority of issues that come before the courts – again, to attempt to do so would litter the Constitution with thousands of ‘amendments’ rendering it unworkable.

Moreover, it would violate each American’s First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances and each American’s Fifth Amendment right to due process of the law by seeking relief before the Federal courts.

 

[Mustang]

Nah, any Liberals able to process any of this more advanced info are just idiot savants.

Idiot Savant is a term that is no loger considered accurate and, as a result, is also no longer in common usage, except among the more ignorant classes of people. Savant Syndrome is considered more accurate. Hopefully, you'll be able to benefit from my greater knowledge on the subject...

I'm reminded of the time when my date (a former Nun) and I were at a social affair and one of her friends began talking about the drugs used for mood disorders. Oh, she knew them all and I knew none of them. Well, I later learned she was a drug addict.

She probably thought you had a mood disorder (or maybe just a psychological problem of some kind), which isn't surprising seeing as how you were dating a former nun.

 

[Mojo2]

Society evolves

Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed

The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society

That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on

No, that is why we have Article V, to amend the Constitution.

Nonsense.

The ‘amendment process’ was never intended to address every conflict and controversy that manifests in society; in fact, it’s wholly unsuited to bring a resolution to the vast majority of issues that come before the courts – again, to attempt to do so would litter the Constitution with thousands of ‘amendments’ rendering it unworkable.

Moreover, it would violate each American’s First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances and each American’s Fifth Amendment right to due process of the law by seeking relief before the Federal courts.

Article V is for PRECISELY these times.

A lawless Executive branch and an unresponsive government.

Article V takes the government back.

ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION: AN EMERGENCY SOLUTION, HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT

by MARK MECKLER

10 Feb 2014 827 POST A COMMENT

Some people don’t believe it.

In school, we were taught, along with reading, ‘riting, and ‘rithmatic, how the Constitution is amended: an amendment must go before both houses of Congress and pass a two-thirds vote. Before it becomes a permanent part of the Constitution, three fourths of the state legislatures would have to ratify it.

But there’s another way to change the Constitution, and it’s hidden in plain sight in Article V, one that many of us have never even heard of. Here’s the text of Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, also as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress…​

Did you catch the second way to change the Constitution?

In addition to the way stated above, the founders put a little gift in Article V for us. In fact, George Mason is the one who made sure to include what some have called a “Constitutional Emergency Cord” to be pulled in case of government overreach. Mason urged his fellow founders, “It would be improper to require the consent of the National Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account.”

The founders paid attention to Mason’s argument and changed Article V to reflect this second way: Congress will call a convention if two thirds of the states petition to call a convention in which they can consider new amendments. In both the first and second scenarios, three fourths of the state legislatures must ratify the amendments before they become permanent.

Therein lies the beauty of Article V. It gives us two ways to change things up when times get challenging. Amending the Constitution isn’t too easy (which would throw society into chaos), and it’s not too hard (which would make the Constitution so rigid that the people might rebel against it).

Since the government has tried to reach into our homes, medical care, and pockets, frustrated citizens have talked of rebelling against the government or even secession. But this extreme reaction ignores the fact that the founders saw this day coming and gave us a Constitutional tool which allows us to restrain the out-of-control federal government. Knowing human nature, the founders knew the federal government would eventually grow like a fungus and try to cover every aspect of our lives. That’s why there’s a modern-day interest in Article V. Mark Levin’s book The Liberty Amendments brought it into the public eye, Glenn Beck has also been promoting it on his show, Hannity and Limbaugh are talking about it, and several well-known leaders – such as Tom Coburn, Michael Farris, Mike Huckabee, and David Barton – have publicly endorsed it.

As President of Citizens for Self-Governance, I’ve been advocating a convention of states since long before the idea reached the general public. We’ve even created a viable strategy to bring a convention to reality.

Many times, people lament how powerful and abusive our federal government has become, without realizing there’s a way to fight it – right there in Article V of the Constitution. So now you know. Now you see.

But we have to do more than just see it.

This week, the Convention of States resolution is pending in multiple state legislatures. Many state legislators are standing up and calling for an Amending Convention under Article V. These brave legislators are fighting to take the power from the federal leviathan and return it to you, the sovereign citizen. But they can’t do it without your help.
And you can help.

If you’re in Florida, Arizona, or Georgia, your self-governance moment is now. Call, fax, and email your representatives. Go to Convention of States and get the details of who is on the relevant committees so that you can reach out to the right people and tell them to vote for the Convention of States resolution.

Now you know it’s there, and now is the time. Article V of the Constitution: a solution as big as the problem.

It is our moral obligation to use it.

Mark Meckler is the President of Citizens for Self-Governance, which created the Convention of States Project.

Article V of the Constitution: An Emergency Solution, Hidden in Plain Sight

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Society evolves

Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed

The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society

That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on

No, that is why we have Article V, to amend the Constitution.

Nonsense.

The ‘amendment process’ was never intended to address every conflict and controversy that manifests in society; in fact, it’s wholly unsuited to bring a resolution to the vast majority of issues that come before the courts – again, to attempt to do so would litter the Constitution with thousands of ‘amendments’ rendering it unworkable.

Moreover, it would violate each American’s First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances and each American’s Fifth Amendment right to due process of the law by seeking relief before the Federal courts.

Nonsense from you again! The Constitution as predicated on the sociopolitical philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and applied accordingly most certainly does anticipate virtually every potentiality. You leftists are just blind to the absolute and universal imperatives of reality on which the imperatives of these documents are ultimately predicated as you strive to fashion a collectivist democracy of mob rule via judicial activism out of a representative Republic of inalienable rights! The fact of the matter is that virtually the only legitimate reason left to amend the Constitution after all these many years would be to quash a number of egregious usurpations of original intent via the case law inserted by statist punks.

 

[Mojo2]

Idiot Savant is a term that is no loger considered accurate and, as a result, is also no longer in common usage, except among the more ignorant classes of people. Savant Syndrome is considered more accurate. Hopefully, you'll be able to benefit from my greater knowledge on the subject...

I'm reminded of the time when my date (a former Nun) and I were at a social affair and one of her friends began talking about the drugs used for mood disorders. Oh, she knew them all and I knew none of them. Well, I later learned she was a drug addict.

She probably thought you had a mood disorder (or maybe just a psychological problem of some kind), which isn't surprising seeing as how you were dating a former nun.

I guess my message went over your head.

The reason you know about these disorders is because you are a NUTZO.

And, in an ironic footnote, I soon began seeing the druggie.

More fun.

But that's where you can stop applying my messages to you and your patheticness.

I WILL NOT **** you.

No matter how much you may want it.

So stop trying to impress me.